From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202328170)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328170

Clarion Housing Association Limited

4 September 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), and the associated request for a housing transfer.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a flat in a block. The landlord recorded the resident as having vulnerable household members. The resident’s reports of ASB centered around her neighbour. For clarity, this report refers to the alleged perpetrator of ASB as “Mr A”.
  2. In May 2023 there was an alleged altercation between in the resident and Mr A. It was reported MR A was verbally abusive towards the resident and threatened to stab her with a knife. The police were called and arrested Mr A. The resident reported the incident to the landlord and it opened an ASB case. Mr A received a conviction, In November 2023, related to his actions during the above incident.
  3. As part of its ASB case the landlord contacted the police for more information, completed and action plan and risk assessment with the resident. It also made a request to install a panic alarm at the resident’s property.
  4. The resident reported another 3 incidents of ASB from Mr A in November and December 2023. The reports related to noise disturbance from Mr A. In April 2024, the resident reported Mr A approached her as she was putting her child in the car and made an unsettling comment to her. The landlord advised the resident to contact the police, but the notes reflect she did not want to do so.
  5. Following contact from us, the landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 12 August 2024 It gave a history of the actions it had taken in the ASB case including the fact it had gained a court order against Mr A . It explained it had recently refused the resident’s transfer request because of the court order and the measures put in place against Mr A. It apologised it had not opened a complaint in January 2024 when the resident raised concerns with it. It offered £100 in compensation for its complaint handling.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and asked it to open a stage 2 complaint on 13 August 2024.
  7. On 15 August 2024 there was a further alleged incident of ASB. The resident reported Mr A “charged” at the resident while she was carrying her baby. She reported it to the police who attended and arrested Mr A. The police emailed the landlord on the same day. The police said it was investigating “very aggressive and harassing” behaviour by Mr A towards the resident. It said it had “great concerns regarding the safety of [the resident]”. It recommended the landlord move the family as a “matter of urgency”.
  8. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 19 September 2024. It restated it had an “interim injunction” against Mr A. It said the resident’s transfer appeal was not upheld because the supporting evidence did not “demonstrate that serious risk exist[ed]”. It apologised for an error in referring to the resident’s preferred area to be rehoused. It offered £25 in compensation for the error.
  9. The resident contacted us on 21 October 2024 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her transfer request.

Events after the complaints process

  1. Following 2 further reports of alleged ASB from Mr A, the landlord approved the resident’s transfer request in November 2024.
  2. The landlord contacted the resident in December 2024. It apologised its stage 2 complaint response failed to acknowledge the response was delayed. It offered £75 in compensation for its complaint handling.
  3. The resident signed a new tenancy for a different property with the landlord in July 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

  1. When the resident brought her complaint to us she raised concerns she had been reporting ASB against Mr A since 2019. Due to the passage of time, we have not assessed the landlord’s handling of matters dating back to 2019. Our Scheme states we may not investigate complaints brought to a landlord within a reasonable period of the matters arising, normally 12 months. In line with the approach set out in our Scheme, this investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of matters within a reasonable period leading up to the resident’s formal complaint.
  2. It is evident that this situation was distressing for the resident. We acknowledge the resident does not believe the landlord responded appropriately to her reports of ASB. It is outside our remit to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring, or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations. And whether it was fair in all the circumstances of the case..
  3. Throughout her complaint, the resident raised a concern the ASB was impacting on her health, and the landlord’s handling of the matter increased the impact. We acknowledge the serious nature of this and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, unlike a court, the Ombudsman is unable to establish liability, so we cannot calculate or award damages. Nor can we evaluate medical evidence.
  4. On that basis, the resident’s concerns around damage to her health is beyond the scope of this investigation. We can assess whether a landlord offered sufficient redress for the distress and inconvenience it caused. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she wishes to pursue this matter further.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, and the associated transfer request.

  1. The Government’s ‘Putting Victims First’ guidance states that reported incidents of ASB should be “risk assessed at the earliest opportunity” to ensure an appropriate response. The Government’s ASB guidance for frontline professionals states that when an ASB case needs further actions, an action plan should be completed, and shared with the complainant.
  2. The landlord’s ASB procedure states it will refer reporters of ASB to a tenancy specialist to manage their case. The procedure says it will work in partnership with other agencies. The procedure says it will agree and action plan and risk assessment with the complainant and speak to the police about any reported crimes. The procedure states a transfer will only be considered if the police “strongly advise” in writing the resident is moved because their “lives may be at risk”. The landlord’s management transfer policy states it will consider a resident for a transfer if they are experiencing ASB or harassment that puts them at risk of serious harm.
  3. The evidence shows when the resident reported the alleged incident of ASB in May 2023 the landlord appropriately followed its ASB procedure. It contacted the police for information, completed a risk assessment, and did an action plan with the resident. This was reasonable in the circumstances and evidence it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
  4. The evidence also shows the landlord took legal action against Mr A in an attempt to keep the resident safe, and requested a panic alarm for her property. This was appropriate considering the nature of the reports of ASB. It also encouraged the resident to report any further incidents to the police and seek temporary accommodation from the local authority if she felt unsafe. This was appropriate in the circumstances. We acknowledge the resident was unwilling to leave her property due to the vulnerabilities of her household members.
  5. The landlord used its stage 1 complaint response to outline its position in relation to the actions it had taken in the ASB case. It also set out its position it had refused the transfer request. While we acknowledge the resident was distressed about the ASB and the situation with Mr A. The landlord reasonably applied its ASB procedure at the time in relation to the reports of ASB.
  6. However, shortly after the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response there was a further alleged incident of ASB. Following this incident the police contacted the landlord stating it had “great concerns regarding the safety of [the resident]”. Considering the situation appeared to be escalating, it is unreasonable the landlord did not revisit its decision regarding the resident’s transfer request. We acknowledge it continued to advise the resident to seek temporary accommodation from the local authority. However, given the particular vulnerabilities of the resident’s household it was unreasonable not revisiting its decision on the transfer request. The landlord failed to have due regard to the individual circumstances of the resident and appropriately apply its transfer policy.
  7. In relation to the transfer request the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was inappropriate. To state there was not evidence that “serious risk exists” was dismissive of the resident’s concerns, and inaccurate. In fact, the landlord had received evidence from the police that a serious risk existed. The landlord failed to fully consider the information it had when it investigated the stage 2 complaint. The resident was evidently distressed at the situation. The landlord’s failure to fully consider the evidence it had may have increased the distress she experienced. The £25 the landlord offered to put right its administrative error was appropriate in the circumstances, but was not sufficient to put right its other errors.
  8. We welcome the fact the landlord approved the resident’s transfer request in November 2024, 2 months later. However, the evidence indicates its own policy threshold for a transfer was met in August 2024. The resident was inconvenienced by a delay of 3 months, and the need to make an appeal.
  9. We welcome the fact the landlord has now offered the resident alternative accommodation. We acknowledge this took 8 months from when the transfer was approved, which may have been frustrating for the resident. However, a landlord can only transfer a resident to another property when a suitable property becomes available in its stock. Given the shortage of accommodation in social housing, the length of time taken to offer the resident alternative accommodation does not amount to a failing on the part of the landlord.
  10. We have seen evidence the landlord repeatedly advised the resident she could seek temporary accommodation with the local authority. This was appropriate considering the time it was likely to take to rehouse her. We acknowledge the resident was unwilling to move to temporary accommodation. However, the landlord was appropriate to repeat its advice to do so.
  11. Considering the failings identified above we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and the associated transfer request. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident. The exact amount of compensation will depend on the individual circumstances of the complaint. The guidance states that findings of maladministration may be made when we identify failures “which adversely affected the resident”. We order the landlord to pay the resident £150 in compensation to put right the above errors. This is in addition to the £25 it already offered for its handling of the matter.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states landlords must send stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord accepted the resident tried to make a complaint in January 2024, but it failed to open a complaint. It sent its stage 1 complaint response, following an intervention from this Service, 8 months later. This was an unreasonable delay and a failing in its complaint handling.  The resident was inconvenienced by the need to seek assistance from us before getting a response to her complaint. The landlord appropriately apologised and offered the resident compensation for the delay. This was reasonable in the circumstances and evidence it sought to put things right.
  3. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response 27 working days after the resident made her stage 2 complaint. This was not an excessive delay, but it was inappropriate it failed to acknowledge the, albeit minor, delay. We welcome the fact the landlord later acknowledged this shortcoming and offered the resident £75 in compensation for the delay at stage 2. Given the offer was made 3 months after the complaints process impacts on the degree to which the offer put right the errors in its complaint handling. As such we have determined there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. Considering the landlord’s total offer of compensation for complaint handling, we do not order it to pay any additional compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and the associated transfer request.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £350 in compensation. It should deduct its total offer of £200 in compensation from this total if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
      1. £175 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the ASB case and transfer request. (which includes its offer of £25 for the administrative error).
      2. The £175 it offered in recognition of the inconvenience caused by errors in its complaint handling.